Thursday, November 29, 2012

Acceptable levels of morality changed
dramatically as the new millennium passed its first decade. Marriage once
relegated to a man and woman found new meaning in laws enacted in nine states,
with Maryland’s recent addition to this group. With same-sex marriage firmly
accepted in these jurisdictions it is only a matter of time before the nation
is pushed in the same direction. More recently, morality took another hit with
changes in current thought concerning Marijuana usage. Eighteen states have
decriminalized and or legalized this psychoactive pharmaceutical before the 2012
election. Colorado and the State of Washington went further by embedding into
law the recreational use of small amounts of this drug. In these states someone
21 or older can go to a designated vendor and purchase one ounce of this mind-altering
chemical. The unintended consequences of more pervasive usage of this weed,
such as auto accidents, may cause these laws to be revisited in the near
future. Not to be out done, the transgender and transsexual crowd decided that
laws already in place do not protect them from discrimination. This group wants
a set of laws carved out to improve their stance in any social or work setting.
For example, a male dressed in female attire: should he use the male or female
dressing room. Similarly, which bathroom would be appropriate for such individuals
to use. Complex issues require complex answers with gender identity moving to
the top of lawmakers’ list. Where does society draw the line when
challenged by issues that traditionalists find vulgar, indecent or outright irrational?
Thirty-seven states, to their credit, have language in their Constitutions or
other legal doctrine defining marriage as a heterosexual union. Are
traditionalists wrong in attempting to obstruct the evolution of these segments
of society so they will be perceived to be on equal footing with the rest of
us? Nature found it biologically inconvenient to pair animals of the same-sex
because of the obvious inability to propagate. Mankind has chosen a similar
path knowing its future existence is at stake. Therefore laws were created to
perpetuate and protect heterosexual unions, not the reverse. Those in same-sex
partnerships or with gender identity concerns would naturally challenge the
traditional basis for this rationale. Yet that very same rationale has
successfully led this society into the future we are now living. Morality is
contingent on standards established by a society in its entirety, not a
subsegment of it. In 2012, those with gender identity issues will continue to
prod politicians to give their concerns an airing and that may come soon. Gay
marriage is making in-roads in legislative houses, but only the most
progressive ones have given the go ahead for such unions. State Marijuana, laws
reducing sanctions and penalties come in direct conflict with their federal
counterparts. The question is: have states gone too far or not far enough
remains for one our finer judges to determine. Mark Davis, MD. www.healthnetsreviewservices.com

Acceptable levels of morality changed dramatically as the new millennium passed its first decade. Marriage once relegated to a man and woman found new meaning in laws enacted in nine states, with Maryland’s recent addition to this group. With same-sex marriage firmly accepted in these jurisdictions it is only a matter of time before the nation is pushed in the same direction. More recently, morality took another hit with changes in current thought concerning Marijuana usage. Eighteen states have decriminalized and or legalized this psychoactive pharmaceutical before the 2012 election. Colorado and the State of Washington went further by embedding into law the recreational use of small amounts of this drug. In these states’ someone 21 or older can go to a designated vendor and purchase one ounce of this mind-altering chemical. The unintended consequences of more pervasive usage of this weed, such as auto accidents, may cause these laws to be revisited in the near future. Not to be out done, the transgender and transsexual crowd decided that laws already in place do not protect them from discrimination. This group wants a set of laws carved out to improve their stance in any social or work setting. For example, a male dressed in female attire: should he use the male or female dressing room. Similarly, which bathroom would be appropriate for such individuals to use. Complex issues require complex answers with gender identity moving to the top of lawmakers’ list. Where does society draw the line when challenged by issues that traditionalists find vulgar, indecent or outright irrational? Thirty-seven states, to their credit, have language in their Constitutions or other legal doctrine defining marriage as a heterosexual union. Are traditionalists wrong in attempting to obstruct the evolution of these segments of society so they will be perceived to be on equal footing with the rest of us? Nature found it biologically inconvenient to pair animals of the same-sex because of the obvious inability to propagate. Mankind has chosen a similar path knowing its future existence is at stake. Therefore laws were created to perpetuate and protect heterosexual unions, not the reverse. Those in same-sex partnerships or with gender identity concerns would naturally challenge the traditional basis for this rationale. Yet that very same rationale has successfully led this society into the future we are now living. Morality is contingent on standards established by a society in its entirety, not a subsegment of it. In 2012, those with gender identity issues will continue to prod politicians to give their concerns an airing and that may come soon. Gay marriage is making in-roads in legislative houses, but only the most progressive ones have given the go ahead for such unions. State Marijuana, laws reducing sanctions and penalties come in direct conflict with their federal counterparts. The question is: have states gone too far or not far enough remains for one our finer judges to determine. Mark Davis, MD. www.healthnetsreviewservices.com

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

Complex issues that
surround the most recent scandals in Washington question whether the government
has the right to review private emails. FBI has diligently reviewed the private
emails of General Petraeus and a woman said to be his paramour. As this scandal
spreads revelations that the privacy of many may have been violated by a
government agency that is overreaching. Information to date notes that the FBI
had no court order to check the Petraeus’ emails nor of other people involved, some
yet to be identified. The question arises are our emails and other digital communications
safe. For the last 5 days all spectrums of the media have debated this point
with a consensus agreeing that privacy has been redefined in this digital age.
In defense of FBI, former agents have noted that protocols require this agency
to check emails where national security may be at risk. Classified documents
have been found in the computer of General Petraeus’ paramour. Three days after
the election it was determined the origins of these documents could not be
traced to the former CIA director. Can your emails be gleaned for data at the
will of a government agency? This issue becomes quasi in nature do to a number
of issues. The Patriot Acted signed into law one month after the Twin Towers
fell gives the government expansive abilities to monitor emails. One caveat is built
into the law that requires several levels of approval for monitoring unless an
extreme emergency exists. America’s newest government bureaucracy, the Transportation
Security Administration (TSA) also has power, under certain circumstances, to
monitor your electronic mail. Software exists that can select out key words and
phrases, that may be of a threatening nature, is utilized across the social
media including emails. In the event a threat is perceived further
investigation may be warranted. Emails
of all Americans including high ranking government officials, can be lawfully
reviewed, without the knowledge of the writer as the law presently stands. No
one should be surprised this is occurring because the nation lives under a level
of fear not felt since the days of the Cold War. Becareful how you construct
your emails, more than one person may be reading them. Mark Davis, MD www.healthnetsreviewservices.com

Thursday, November 8, 2012

Prevailing notions that Obama
had a clean sweep in the Electoral process may not be accurate. There was
nothing clean about his assault on the opposing candidate. Campaign rhetoric
usually takes on a vicious tone as Election Day approaches. Unfortunately, the
democrats put their message before the public in a manner that sinks to new
lows, for a president who wanted to retain power at all costs. Accusations that
Romney was a murderer, a racist, a homophobe, a job killer, insensitive to the
needs of the poor, anti-motherhood, a religious intolerant are but a few of the
claims levied from the Obama camp against a very decent man. One of the
strangest commercials, run by the democrats, was a young woman describing who
she would like as her first sex partner, somehow relating that event to voting
for Obama. Too many references are available describing the indecencies
perpetrated by an Administration that was desperate to retain power.

Romney’s laid back casual
approach to politics did not attract the groups necessary to garner sufficient
votes for his drive to the White House. Hispanics were not moved by his staunch
aversion to allow illegals to roam the ranges of America unhindered by the law.
Birth control became an issue when women were demanding free medications under
Obamacare and Romney sided with the churches against this issue. Soccer moms
were aloof from the Romney message perhaps because of his wealth or perceived
detachment from his own children. Afro Americans had mixed feelings about his
faith, wealth and most important his minimal campaigning amongst them. Romney’s
message was clear, succinct and forward-looking but most wanted to keep the
status quo alive. Many dependent on the government saw Romney as the person who
would turn-off the financial spigot, leaving them with an uncertain future.
Romney did not lose because he was a bad candidate. He lost because he was too
good for those who have become accustomed to a free ride through government
offerings. Obama was their man, full of hope and a lot of change for their
pockets. The question did anybody really win on Election Day? The answer is a
resounding no. Four more years of bad energy policies, an out of control EPA,
health legislation that does not fulfill its stated intentions, schools on a
downward slope, ongoing reductions in our military capacities, more
redistribution of wealth, a foreign policy in tatters and more. America lost on
November 6, 2012 and tyranny won. Mark Davis, MD President of Healthnets Review
Services. platomd@gmail.com

Prevailing notions that Obama had a clean sweep in the Electoral process may not be accurate. There was nothing clean about his assault on the opposing candidate. Campaign rhetoric usually takes on a vicious tone as Election Day approaches. Unfortunately, the democrats put their message before the public in a manner that sinks to new lows, for a president who wanted to retain power at all costs. Accusations that Romney was a murderer, a racist, a homophobe, a job killer, insensitive to the needs of the poor, anti-motherhood, a religious intolerant are but a few of the claims levied from the Obama camp against a very decent man. One of the strangest commercials, run by the democrats, was a young woman describing who she would like as her first sex partner, somehow relating that event to voting for Obama. Too many references are available describing the indecencies perpetrated by an Administration that was desperate to retain power.

Romney’s laid back casual approach to politics did not attract the groups necessary to garner sufficient votes for his drive to the White House. Hispanics were not moved by his staunch aversion to allow illegals to roam the ranges of America unhindered by the law. Birth control became an issue when women were demanding free medications under Obamacare and Romney sided with the churches against this issue. Soccer moms were aloof from the Romney message perhaps because of his wealth or perceived detachment from his own children. Afro Americans had mixed feelings about his faith, wealth and most important his minimal campaigning amongst them. Romney’s message was clear, succinct and forward-looking but most wanted to keep the status quo alive. Many dependent on the government saw Romney as the person who would turn-off the financial spigot, leaving them with an uncertain future. Romney did not lose because he was a bad candidate. He lost because he was too good for those who have become accustomed to a free ride through government offerings. Obama was their man, full of hope and a lot of change for their pockets. The question did anybody really win on Election Day? The answer is a resounding no. Four more years of bad energy policies, an out of control EPA, health legislation that does not fulfill its stated intentions, schools on a downward slope, ongoing reductions in our military capacities, more redistribution of wealth, a foreign policy in tatters and more. America lost on November 6, 2012 and tyranny won. Mark Davis, MD President of Healthnets Review Services. platomd@gmail.com

Friday, November 2, 2012

Question 4 takes
Marylanders into the World of illegal immigration. This question is written in
such a manner, one becomes dizzy after scanning it. Offering “illegal residents
of the state” reduced tuition in 4 year colleges based on a list of criteria that
would make sophists proud. These criteria note the illegal student must be
filing income tax returns, graduated from a Maryland high school, registered
with selective service system and accumulated 60 credit hours in a community
college. Illegals are just that illegal. Does the liberal O’Malley administration
want us to believe these illegals are registering for selective service and filing
not necessarily paying income taxes? Maryland has a great heart when it comes
to the down and out. The state’s insatiable treasury continues to raise fees,
taxes, tolls and more to fund illegals in high schools, colleges and sundry
other programs. Why would anyone with a
sound mind support a government that admits through its activities they are
acting outside Maryland and Federal Law? Please read Question 4 closely, the
money you save may be your own.

Question 6 moves gay
unions into the realm of marriage legitimatizing their coupling into law. A key
proviso of this intended question provides for certain protections of the
clergy in the event they refuse to perform such ceremonies. This politically
charged question divides Marylanders into two groups, the yays and the nays, of
which this writer is the latter. Any legal argument generated by the gay and
lesbian crowd for a marriage certificate can be countered with laws already
embedded in Maryland statue giving them certain rights they seek. To redefine
marriage redefines history, theology, biology and many other related topics.
This is one question that a person will have to dig deep into his or her soul
to decide. Medias’ convoluted perspective on this subject side steps many
issues against this question. Before casting your ballot one way or the other,
review this question thoroughly, the core of the country still sides against
this issue.

Question 7 assumes that
Marylanders have a pervasive level of ignorance. During the reign of Governor
Bob Ehrlich gambling was cast in the media as evil. Tens of thousands would
become addicted to these one arm bandits. Families would be destroyed and so
forth. When the democrats took over the reins of the governorship, all the
purported arguments against gambling vanished! Commercials running every ten
minutes detail a state government that will collapse unless gaming expansion
occurs. Children will not be educated if this question fails to pass. Jobs will
be lost to neighboring states and a host of calamities will befall Maryland
without more slots, more casinos and table games. The truth I noted in another
article, Maryland’s deceptive casino ads, remains the truth. There is no
legislation on the books or pending requiring casino money to be utilized for
education. Adding more casinos dilutes revenues from those facilities already
functioning. The lie that jobs will be fleeing to other states is just that a
lie. My question is: who will build these new houses of gambling? Out of state
workers, illegals or closed shop unions most likely will make the bucks. From
every angle this law is perceived, Marylanders will not see the benefits
purported by the state and their deceptive ads. When deciding on Question 7 ask
your out of work friends or family members if they will have a chance at these
new jobs. I would bet the house that most would say no. Mark Davis MD President
of Healthnets Review Services, platomd@gmail.com